Monday, February 18, 2008

NY Times' Latest Bow-down to Terrorists

If you’re both a regular New York Times reader and discerning – there really are such people – you know the Old Grey Lady doesn’t just relentlessly bash America. The Times also does whatever else it can to appease Muslim terrorists.

Christopher Hitchens at Slate has the latest [excerpt]:

In Denmark last week, the authorities detained three people in an alleged plot to murder a 72-year-old Dane named Kurt Westergaard. Westergaard is an illustrator who lives peacefully in a university town. Not very long ago, he joined with other cartoonists in an open society in drawing some caricatures of the alleged "prophet" Mohammed.

The object of the satire was to break the largely self-imposed taboo on the criticism of Islam and its various icons. The satire was wildly successful, in that it resulted in hysterical Muslims making public idols out of images they had proclaimed to be unshowable lest they became idols. Much nasty violence and intimidation accompanied this stupidity.

Anyway, last week, almost every Danish newspaper made a deliberate decision to reprint the offending cartoons. Perhaps, if you live in most of the countries where this column of mine is syndicated or reprinted, you wonder what all the fuss can have been about.

Certainly, if you live in the United States or Britain, you will be wondering still.

This is because your newspapers [,including the NY Times,] have decided for you ... that you must be shielded from the unpalatable truth. Or can it really be that?

We live in the defining age of the image and the picture; how can it be that the whole point of an entirely visual story can be deliberately left out? (To see the original cartoons, by the way, click here.)

I have a feeling that the decision to protect you from the images was determined this time by something as vulgar as fear.

The cowardice of the mainstream American culture was something to see the first time around. The only magazines that bucked the self-censorship trend, or the capitulation to undisguised terror, were the conservative Weekly Standard and the atheist Free Inquiry—two outlets (for both of which I have written) with a rather small combined circulation.

Borders thereupon pulled Free Inquiry from its shelves, with the negligible consequence that I will never do a reading or buy a book at any of its sites ever again. (By the way, I urge you to follow suit.)

I think it's pretty safe to say that most Americans never even saw this sellout going on. But that was because their own newspapers were too shamefaced to report a surrender of which they were themselves a part.

In Canada, only two minority papers reprinted the cartoons. The Western Standard, now online only, and the Jewish Free Press were promptly taken before a sort of scrofulous bureaucratic peoples' court describing itself as the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

If you think that's a funny name, try the title of the complainant: the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada. Who knows how long such a stupid "hate speech" case might have dragged on or how much public money and time it might have consumed, but last week the Islamic supremes decided to drop it.

"I understand that most Canadians see this as an issue of freedom of speech," said Syed Soharwardy of the case that he had originated, adding "that principle is sacred and holy in our society." Soharwardy went on to say, rather condescendingly perhaps, that: "I believe Canadian society is mature enough not to absorb the messages that the cartoons sent. Only a very small fraction of Canadian media decided to publish those cartoons."

Without the word not and without the sinister idea that Soharwardy's permission is required for anything, that first sentence would have been a perfectly good if banal statement.

But with the addition of his remark about the "small fraction" and the concomitant satisfaction about the general reticence, we have no choice but to conclude that Soharwardy is satisfied on the whole with the level of frightened deference to be found north of the U.S. border.

I mention this only because the level of frightened deference to be found south of that border is still far in excess of what any censor, or even self-censor, might dare to wish.
Hitchens entire column is here.

I understand why so many MSM news organizations inlcuding the NY Times, Washington Post and my local liberal/leftist paper, the Raleigh News & Observer, bow down to the Muslim terrorists.

What I don't understand is why more Americans aren't saying: "Enough! We must find new sources of news."


Anonymous said...

What I don't understand is why more Americans aren't saying: "Enough! We must find new sources of news."


They are...have you seen the times' subscription numbers lately?

Anonymous Marine Colonel.

JWM said...

To Anon Marine Colonel,

Yes, NYT's subscription numbers are falling, but not fast enough for me.

I'm still troubled by how often, despite previous examples of MSM's duplicity, the American public lets itself get fooled by MSM.

The Duke Hoax is an example.

The story the false accuser told was wildly improbable. Weeks after the alleged events, there were no witness descriptions other than "white male lacrosse players." And the DNA evidence had come back negative.

People should have realized it was a Tawana Brawley replay and many did.

But polling in mid-April 2006 showed most respondents believed the false accusations, which the media had exploited in racial, gender and class terms, were true in whole or substantially.

By way of signoff: While I can’t be sure you’re a Marine, I have no reason to doubt you are.

My thanks go to Marines, other members of our Armed Forces, and their families for all their sacrifices to keep us free.

I often remind people here that the America military is the world’s most important human rights organization and its greatest relief services organization.

Thanks for commenting. Please let me know if you see this.


Anonymous said...


Is there some way to send you an email? Id be glad to do so from my military account... If I could remain anonymous.

I originally found your blog from my research of the Duke Lacross case. I am quite dissapointed with the craven behavior of the Duke University staff and leadership. By their actions and lack thereof, they show they do not deserve their prestigous positions, nor our respect.

Enough of that...

After being hooked by your Duke coverage, I stayed for the Churchill articles. I really enjoy those. I would have enjoyed meeting that man.

lastly, Thanks for your kind words, but to be honest, I believe your personal courage as a reasonably centrist blogger within the nut house of academia makes you the braver man. We Marines at least tend to know who are enemies are, and we can actually shoot them, which does wonders for the stress level. Some folks just need killin, as Jim Mattis would say. You unfortunately, dont have such latitude.

In closing Ill comment on that whole berkeley flap. I dont get too worked up over code pink or berkeley in general. The simple fact that those knuckleheads can act in such an egregious manner, and get away with no ill repurcusions tells me we are doing our job of defending freedom. In this case the freedom to be a jackass, but freedom nonetheless. I have been in enough other countries to know the difference between real freedoms, and lip service.